pypi package report

Is nanopb safe?

2 known vulnerabilities, worst severity HIGH.

cvss
7.1

how bad it is if exploited, out of 10

epss
1.8%

chance of exploitation in the next 30 days

xyz score
3.4

CyberXYZ composite, out of 10

fig. 01 — GHSA-7mv5-5mxh-qg88, the advisory selected below

// advisories

GHSA-7mv5-5mxh-qg88

HIGHCVE-2021-21401

Decoding a specifically formed message can cause invalid free() or realloc() calls if the message type contains an oneof field, and the oneof directly contains both a pointer field and a non-pointer field. If the message data first contains the non-pointer field and then the pointer field, the data of the non-pointer field is incorrectly treated as if it was a pointer value. Such message data rare

Affected
>= 0.4.0, < 0.4.5, >= 0.3.2, < 0.3.9.8
Fixed in
0.4.5
Weakness
CWE-763
Published
2024-08-30
Source
github

GHSANVDMITREreferencereferencereferencereferencereferencereference

// dependencies

1 direct, 1 carrying known advisories, worst HIGH

Sign in for dependency paths and remediation

// ai model usage

No published models are known to use this package.

Checked 2026-09-22 at 03:34 UTC. The most recent advisory here was published 2024-08-30. Updated continuously from NVD, GHSA, OSV and CNA feeds.

Think a verdict here is wrong? Tell us — we respond within 2 business days.
Is nanopb safe? pypi package security report | CyberXYZ